Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1546 (JHR)

Mugdha Mishra v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-29

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2. 2. This application is directed against the order, dated 23-9-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 whereby and where under the order, dated 26-6-2013 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in Complaint Case No. 205 of 2006 refusing to entertain an application under section 319 of the Cr. P.C., 1973 preferred on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 has been allowed. 3. It appears that a complaint was instituted by the opposite party No. 2 being Complaint Case No. 205 of 2006 against several accused persons including the petitioners. After cognizance was taken, process was issued against the other accused persons save and except petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which led the opposite party No. 2 to prefer revision application in Criminal Revision No. 106 of 2006. Vide order dated 26-9-2006 the revision application was dismissed with liberty to the opposite party No. 2 to invoke the provision of Section 319, Cr. P.C., 1973 at the appropriate stage if ample option is available to the complainant. It appears that before the charge three witnesses have been examined and thereafter an application under Section 319, Cr. P.C., 1973 was preferred by the opposite party No. 2 which was dismissed on 26-9-2006 by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat on the ground that specific allegations are lacking in the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. Against the dismissal of the application under Section 319, Cr. P.C., 1973 the opposite party No. 2 preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 which was allowed in favour of the opposite party No. 2 and order dated 26-9-2006 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat was set aside. 4. It appears from the impugned order dated 23-9-2014 that the factual aspects of the allegation has been discussed without appreciating the evidence of witnesses who were examined before charge. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of the witnesses and thereafter thought it fit to reject the application under Section 319, Cr. 4. It appears from the impugned order dated 23-9-2014 that the factual aspects of the allegation has been discussed without appreciating the evidence of witnesses who were examined before charge. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of the witnesses and thereafter thought it fit to reject the application under Section 319, Cr. P.C., 1973 The learned revisional Court as has been stated above has merely relied on the allegation made in the complaint petition and has not even made awhisper about the evidence which has been led by the complainant which forms the basis of rejection of the application under Section 319, Cr. P.C., 1973 by the learned S.D.J.M., Bermo at Tenughat. 5. In such circumstance, therefore, the impugned order dated 23-9-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bermo at Tenughat in Criminal Revision No. 154 of 2013 being not tenable in the eye of law is, hereby, quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned revisional Court to pass fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the respective parties expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 6. This application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations.